Idle musings by a once again bookseller, always bibliophile, current copyeditor, proofreader, and former cabin housekeeper/maintenance guy. Complete with ramblings about biblical studies, the ancient Near East, bicycling, gardening, or anything else I am reading (or experiencing). All live from the North Shore of Lake Superior

Sunday, May 29, 2016

Birth incantations aid the woman in labour to break free the “boat” from the darkness of womb, to wash out the baby bound by the umbilical cord to the “quay of death” (Stol 2000: 69). The following recitation is intended for a woman having difficulty in giving birth:

The boat is detained at the quay of death; the magurru boat is held back at the quay of hardship. ... May it come out from hardship; [may it see] the sun (Scurlock 2014: 601, half brackets omitted).

The association between the drowning boat and dying woman was used in scientific texts, e.g. in the apodosis of an Old Babylonian liver omen: “the full(y loaded) boat will sink; or: the pregnant woman will die in her giving birth” (Stol 2000: 62). Therefore the unborn baby in the womb that was too voluminous to be delivered could be regarded as being fatally locked in the netherworld prison, failing to find its way out from the amniotic fluids. Nobody except the divine exorcist Asalluhi could see what was inside of these waters (Frymer-Kensky 1977: 603). In the following Old Babylonian incantation, the locks and doors are broken down to let the baby out:

In the waters of intercourse, the bone was created; in the flesh of muscles, the baby was created. In the ocean waters, fearsome, raging, in the far-off waters of the sea: where the little one is – his arms are bound, inside which the eye of the sun does not bring light. Asalluhi, the son of Enki, saw him. He loosed his tight-bound bonds, he made him a path, he opened him a way: “Opened are the paths for you, the ways are [alo]tted for you. The [divine mid]wife is sitting for you, she who creates [...], she who creates us all. She has spoken to the doorbolt: ‘You are released’. Removed are the locks, the doors are thrown aside. Let him knock at [the door], like a fish (dadum), bring yourself out!”

Those who are not released are detained in the ordeal prison, which prevents them to advance to the world of the living. In the Maqlû incantations the terms “ford, entrance” (nēberu) and “quay” (kāru) are used for such places of detention. The exorcist binds the witches and their sorceries to remain there (I 50-51):

Incantation: I have blocked the ford, I have blocked the quay, I have blocked their sorceries (coming) from all the lands!

The exorcist intends to prevent the entrance of the witches to the world of the living, leaving them eternally blocked on the “quay of death”. The opposite is the case in exorcistic birth incantations where the child is expected to become delivered from the “quay of hardship” to the world of the living (BAM 248 I 44-50):

“The boat is detained [at the quay] of narrowness (pušqi), the magurru-boat is held back [at the quay] of hardship. [Whom should I] send to merciful Marduk? May the boat be loosed [from the quay] of difficulty, may the magurru-boat be freed [from the quay] of hardship. [Come out to me] like a snake; slither out to me like a snake. May the woman having difficulty having birth bring (her pregnancy) to term so that the infant may fall to the earth and see the sunlight” (Scurlock 2014: 595, 601).

In comparison to Maqlû passage, the birth incantations intend to achieve just the opposite – to release the unborn bodies from the “quay”. The same Akkadian verb for “holding back” (kalû) is used in both contexts. This difference is related to the positive and negative outcomes in the reintegration stage that is crucial for the Self going through a religious experience. While child’s birth assures the positive integration of the Self from the point of view of a healthy mother and her baby, the witches and demons experience a failure in their binding process and remain stuck at the quay of death, unable to leave the netherworld.— The Overturned Boat, pages 52–53

<idle musing>
Fascinating, isn't it? This is a very interesting book, if you are into ANE religion, that is. Some of the stuff is highly speculative and reminds me somewhat of reading the early 20th century history of religions—which I love to read, but take with a pound of salt : )

Friday, May 27, 2016

Is that even a word? Oh well, here's some good insight into answering the question:

I tap Eco for a variety of reasons. He was among the first theorists to emphasize the reader in a clearly postmodern way, but unlike more radical reader-response theories, he contends it is the text that is interpreted, not the reader’s drives. As a result, Eco is able to account for the potential multiple interpretations of a text, and provides a moderate postmodern theory that allows for textual polysemy without capitulating to the idea that texts can be made to say whatever the reader wants.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 120–21

Thursday, May 26, 2016

With the ruled nature of the literal sense in mind we can note, secondly, that interpreting Scripture—again, a means of grace—is not something done for its own sake, but to achieve a particular end. All of Scripture for Wesley participates in a message; it has a general tenor summarized in the analogy of faith. As a result, the point of interpretation is not to understand the text itself, but to understand through the text.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 94

<idle musing>
A point that needs to be remembered by people like me. I too often get so lost in the text and what it might mean—the possible interpretations, the textual variants, the intertextual references, and on and on we go&mdasah;to the point of missing the heart of the text: to know God.
</idle musing>

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

[Paul Holmer [The Grammar of Faith, 62–68, 90] argues that the desire of theologians for systematic concepts that are more precise than ordinary religious language causes them to create a scientific language, a language of learning that is at a remove; it is a language “about” religious belief. Religious language, on the other hand, is a language “of”; it is the language of faith requiring self-involvement. Concepts in the scientific sense move away from lived faith into something abstract and neutral, but concepts in the religious sense help mediate faith, aiding believers in faithful living.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 94

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Following Protestant tradition, Wesley adhered to the primacy of the literal sense, unless tensions in the text demanded something else; at that point he would allow a “spiritual” or allegorical, reading to circumvent the problem. However, in his soteriological reading of Scripture, Wesley is constantly interpreting with an eye to how Scripture converts and sanctifies.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 93

<idle musing>
In other words, his hermeneutic was one of holiness. I like that, myself. I might phrase it a bit differently, but the substance would be the same. Maybe that's why I identify the most with the Holiness tradition (at its best, without the legalism that too often accompanies it).
</idle musing>

Thursday, May 19, 2016

Scripture is therefore open to all persons seeking salvation through it because it is through Scripture that God addresses them. As a means of grace the literal sense of Scripture is the instrument by which the God who is creator of all reveals both who he is and who humanity is as well. The analogy of faith is obviously at work here, and it orients, or patterns, Wesley’s attention to the text in a way that allows him to see connections of divine intent throughout the Bible. Of course, Wesley also learns to see these connections from Scripture itself, as his commentary on Rom 9 shows. This intent is to save humanity from sin and lead it on the path of sanctification. The literal sense is thus the sense of the Bible pro nobis.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 92

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

"The proper role of the leaders is to obediently carry out YHWH’s instructions according to the divine plan (see esp. Exod 39:32, 43; 40:33b) and witness to what YHWH is doing for the Israelites as he unfolds his covenant promise to be their God (see esp. Exod 16:6–7, 9, 15; Num 14:7, 9*). As long as they exercise this role in a proper manner they are the true leaders of the nation. However, if they do not, by not witnessing to YHWH and his holiness but seeking to take his place in relation to the people, blocking the knowledge of YHWH from them, they are not the true leaders of the nation and they will lose their leadership. However, even if Israel’s leadership is disobedient YHWH will still provide for the nation. Such leaders will be obliterated but the divine plan will still unfold, and YHWH will ensure that there will be subsequent leaders in terms of the high priests of the Aaronic priesthood (symbolized in the transference of Aaron’s clothing to his son Eleazar), so that this can occur, with each one judged in similar terms. If he is obedient to YHWH and witnesses to YHWH by mediating the presence of YHWH (as symbolized in his garments) he will remain leader; but if he blocks the knowledge of YHWH by not exercising correctly his priestly duties, he too will be stripped of his leadership."—Suzanne Boorer, forthcoming from SBL Press

For Wesley the literal sense of Scripture is its soteriological sense. When Wesley reads Scripture, he does so assuming that all of it contributes to the economy of salvation, as was evident in the way he could bring various texts throughout Scripture to bear on a particular theme in the sermons.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 92

<idle musing>
But I think it is only fair to say that for Wesley, soteriology was more than just salvation as we understand it today. To him, sanctification was as much a part of soteriology as justification. There was no dichotomy in his theology between them.
</idle musing>

What is interesting is that Wesley does not merely read the verses [of Ps 22] that show up in the New Testament christologically; he sees the entire psalm as a consistently christological text, complete with an evangelical message. Wesley assumes the Old Testament is to be read as part of the Christian canon, without question, because even there the Gospel is plainly evident. The upshot is that without the Old Testament, the New Testament would be unintelligible for Wesley.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 91

Saturday, May 14, 2016

"Reference to the תנין [tannin] as the sea monster or sea dragon often occurs in Hebrew texts in the context of creation imagery (e.g., Isa 51:9; Job 7:12; Ps 74:13); the תנין [tannin] represents the forces of chaos and is that which is defeated to bring about the cosmic act of creation. The cosmic dimension of this sign is reinforced when considered in relation to Egyptian mythology and culture. As Scott Noegel has argued, the serpent had cosmic import in Egyptian mythology in that Apophis, the giant serpent, was the divine enemy of Ra whom Ra would battle as he made his circuit through the underworld. Therefore, whether viewed from a Hebrew or Egyptian perspective, the action of throwing down the staff and transforming it into a תנין [tannin] has cosmic creation overtones. Moreover, the association of תנין [tannin] with chaos suggests that this sign of throwing down the staff to become a תנין [tannin] has to do with having the power to control or direct chaos, including unleashing it."—Suzanne Boorer, forthcoming from SBL Press

Whereas the literal sense, history, and meaning were coterminous in premodern interpretation, in modernism they became sundered, with the result that the words of Scripture became secondary as exegetes began to seek the world “behind” the text in reconstructed events and authorial intentions, or to locate meaning in dogmatic or scientific concepts.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 71

<idle musing>
Don't get me wrong, I love digging into the background; I'm a knowledge junkie! But too often the background knowledge can cause us to disconnect—rather than connect—that knowledge from practical application to our own life. Therein lies the danger—to which I have succumbed far too often.

I suspect the phrase, "second naïveté" is meant to address this gap...
</idle musing>

Friday, May 13, 2016

Today a biblical scholar might balk at bringing 1 John to bear on the Genesis narrative for fear of doing violence to the voice of Genesis, at least not without qualification, but Wesley assumes a natural connection. Reference to Matthew while considering a point in Genesis creates no problems for Wesley precisely because they are all part of the same gospel. To be even more specific, the analogy of faith dictates that all of these verses can be brought to bear on the image of God in humanity because all—Genesis, Matthew, 1 John and so on—together witness to the truth of justification by faith. Why? Because God has authored both the Scripture that teaches justification as well as the lives whose need for salvation Scripture reveals by its teaching on justification.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 64

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Without God’s gracious movement toward us, we would be dead in sin. Since God has so moved, the means of grace are the channels through which we can participate in the divine life opened to us.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 57

Monday, May 09, 2016

[J]ustification is what God does for us, removing the guilt of sin; whereas new birth, or regeneration, is what God does in us, renewing our fallen nature. Salvation for Wesley is thus a recovery of the divine image within the heart, also known for him as the kingdom of God, allowing humanity to again experience the knowledge and love of God, which leads to love of neighbor.

Redeemed humanity is therefore set on the path of sanctification, as God’s grace continually renews persons who repent and do good works. For Wesley, participation in this graced life is called holiness, As Langford says, in Wesley’s theology “a static condition of salvation was set aside in favor of a dynamic, moment-by-moment relationship with God.” The culmination of this journey is Christian perfection, where the love of God is perfectly shed abroad within the heart, and sanctified persons fully lay hold of the life for which they were created.— Reading the Way to Heaven, pages 55–56

Changing our categorization of -(θ)η- from the analogous English counterpart (passive) to a typologically attested middle form alters our view of Greek voice. Instead of seeing it as a passive marker with defective active outliers in an active-passive system, -(θ)η- is rightly treated as marking the less-transitive middle events—including passives—within a larger transitivity continuum in an active-middle system. The middle share of the space divides the labor across two morphological forms in the aorist and future compared to one in the present and perfect.—Rachel Aubrey in The Greek Verb Revisited

Sunday, May 08, 2016

Middle voice merges the energy source and energy endpoint into one participant. Instead of shifting between two participants to see the effects of the action, the middle gives undivided attention to the energy endpoint. This effectively increases its salience for the event construal. What happens to the affected participant is the most salient for our understanding of the event.—Rachel Aubrey in The Greek Verb Revisited

Saturday, May 07, 2016

When -(θ)η- was first integrated into the aorist, it involved not just a change or affectedness for the subject, but a complete change of state. If we look back at the two predicate types involved, this includes the telic-transformative lexemes as well as the state predicates. It is this relationship between change-of-state/telicity with the perfective aspect of the aorist that defines the -(θ)η- in contrast with the other middle inflectional forms. The aorist perfective aspect aids in this process because it expresses the fulfillment of that change, so that the new state is fully reached or totally complete. If a middle form is used in the present stem (imperfective), it indicates that the subject is undergoing change but it does so as a progressive reaching of the state so that the change is not fully reached. This is a difference between ἐτήκετο “it was melting” in the imperfect and ἐτάκη “it melted” in the aorist. When used with the -(θ)η- aorist stem, the change is fully complete.—Rachel Aubrey in The Greek Verb Revisited

Thursday, May 05, 2016

It [prevenient grace] restores 1) a basic knowledge of God, 2) the moral law in the hearts of believers, 3) conscience, 4) a degree of free will, and 5) restraint against wickedness. Humanity is therefore made able once again to enter communion with God, but only as a response to God’s gracious invitation.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 55

<idle musing>
Nice summary of what prevenient grace (the grace that "comes before") does. Salvation is the result of God's grace, but humanity has a part in it as a response to God's initiative. Our freedom is only possible because it is a restored freedom. But, and this is where Wesleyanism differs from Calvinism/Augustinianism, all humanity is given that grace. In other words, unlimited grace rather than apportioned grace.
</idle musing>

Tuesday, May 03, 2016

We're starting a new book today. It looks interesting; we'll see where it goes as we read it through. Here's the first excerpt, all the way in to page 53; this might be a short excerpt book; some books just don't lend themselves well to excerpting.

Grace is, in Wesley’s vision, what undergirds all of life. As Thomas Langford says about Wesley’s theology, “Grace is God’s active and continuous presence. Definitively expressed in Jesus Christ, grace covers the entirety of life: It creates, redeems, sustains, sanctifies, and glorifies.” Because of grace, Wesley can conceive of the Christian faith as having a certain purpose, or end, toward which everything points: “True religion is right tempers towards God and man. It is...gratitude and benevolence; gratitude to our Creator and supreme Benefactor, and benevolence to our fellow-creatures. In other words, it is the loving God with all our heart, and our neighbour as ourselves.”— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 53

Monday, May 02, 2016

We have seen that the biblical cosmos seems to be spoken of as if it were animate—as if rocks and mountains and seas and stars were living creatures. I want to suggest that this emphasis can serve as a helpful corrective to our tendency to view the world as a lifeless machine.— The Biblical Cosmos, page 204

<idle musing>
That's the final post from this delightful little book. I highly recommend it; it's written in such a way that just about anyone can understand it—and loaded with excellent insight.
</idle musing>

Just ran across a great post by Preston Sprinkle on a theoretical discussion about the old "killer at the door" scenario. Here's a brief excerpt, but please read the whole thing.

Me: Okay, so let me get this straight. A preprogrammed robotic human is breaking into my home with a gun. Any attempt to stop him without using violence is taken off the table, despite the fact that nonviolent attempts to apprehend bad people with guns does actually work in the real world. And in your “real world” scenario, I have quick access to a loaded gun in the house which happens to be no threat to my four children. I’m a pretty good shot but not that good of a shot. God exists in this scenario, but despite the fact that this God typically answers prayer, for this scenario, the heavenly phone’s off the hook. And this cyborg would rather kill me and my family rather than walk with $300,000. And this is somehow your real world?

NRA: Yes, yes, that’s the scenario. What would you do?

Me: I would pinch myself because I must be in a dream. Your supposed “real life” scenario is not the real world at all. It’s a world where Jesus is still in the tomb, prayer doesn’t work, a deistic god stands off in the distance, and the deception of power has clouded your Christian thinking. But my world, the real world, has a crucified Lamb, an empty tomb, and direct access to the heavenly throne which is more effective than 10 tons of C-4.

I don’t live in a theoretical world; I live in a world turned upside down by a God who justifies the ungodly and calls us to love our enemies.

<idle musing>
Amen and amen! Why is it that we have to cordon off God in these discussions? It's as if he doesn't really exist in our daily lives. Of course, maybe he doesn't for some people. I call those people practicing atheists...